Michail Bakunin

Marxism, Freedom and the State

2

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Life of Bakunin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1: Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter 2: Marxist Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 3: The State and Marxism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter 4: Internationalism and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 5: Social Revolution and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter 6: Political Action and the Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix 49Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3

ForewordIn my bookMichael Bakunin and Karl Marx, I stated in a footnote that I intended

to reprint certain passages from Bakunin in a booklet to be entitled Marxism,Anarchism and the State. The present work is a fulfillment of that intention; butI have slightly altered the title, because on reflection, I felt that Bakunin washere treating of wider and deeper matters than merely the merits of one politicalphilosophy as against another. He was treating of the whole question of man’sfreedom in relation to society, to the community.

This question is the supreme question of our generation. On its solution de-pends the fate of the human race; for if the answer to the question of man’sfreedom in relation to the community is to be the totalitarian answer that he hasnone, then indeed can the march of human progress be said to have come to itsend. And that end, bearing in mind the circumstances of this atomic age can onlybe amidst war and universal destruction.

In many parts of his writings, Bakunin has given his views on the nature andpossibilities of human freedom—which he sharply differentiated from egoism andself centred individualism. Apart from that reproduced on the first page of theextracts, perhaps the best definition he has given is that couched in the followingwords:

“We understand by liberty, on the one hand, the development, as complete aspossible of all the natural faculties of each individual, and, on the other hand, hisindependence, not as regards natural and social laws but as regards all the lawsimposed by other human wills, whether collective or separate.

“When we demand the liberty of the masses, we do not in the least claimto abolish any of the natural influences of any individual or of any group ofindividuals which exercise their action on them. What we want is the abolitionof artificial, privileged, legal, official, influences.” (Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx,p. 300)

With this view of liberty is linked Bakunin’s view of authority, which he byno means equates with organisation and self-discipline, which, in themselves, heregarded as very desirable. What he meant by “authority”, namely the right tocommand or to enforce obedience, was considered by him to be fundamentallyof religious origin. The idea of an authoritarianism that it is our duty to obeyauthority, is derived, according to his theory from religious origins, even when ithas later taken political forms. Hence the opposition to religion, which takes aprominent position in his writings, much more so than in those of the Marxians,and which sometimes is rather violently expressed.

There is also another reason for the criticism of religion and churches that is tobe found so frequently in his writings, and that is the close connection between

4

religion and the State which distinguishes the Hegelian philosophy, against whichBakunin had rebelled. It is pointed out by Gide and Rist: “The State, according toHegel, is an aggression of the spirit realising itself in the conscience of the world,while nature is an expression of the same spirit without the conscience, an alterego—a spirit in bondage. God moving in the world has made the State possible.Its foundation is in the might of reason realising itself in will. It is necessary tothink of it not merely as a given State or a particular institution, but of its essenceor idea as a real manifestation of God. Every State, of whatever kind it may be,partakes of this divine essence.” (A History of Economic Doctrines, p. 435)

Now this close identification of the spirit of God and the spirit of the State isreason enough why Bakunin, as an enemy the State, should also have consideredit necessary to attack religion. Thus, the term “God and the State” later applied byits editors to a fragment of his works, is quite fitting. The Marxians, on the otherhand, as adherents of the State, and as champions of authority, found no suchnecessity for making a frontal attack on religion, and encountered accordinglymuch less of the animous of religiously-minded people than was the fate of theAnarchists.

Opinions may differ in the Socialist movement itself as to the relative impor-tance to be given to the discussion of the religious questions; but the matter ismentioned here only in order to explain Bakunin’s attitude and to show that ithad a logical development, whether or not it were the best tactic to pursue, andwhether or not its fundamental assumptions were correct.

As will be indicated in more detail in the following biography, the extractsprinted in this volume are taken mainly from those writings of Bakunin touchingon his controversy with Marx and therefore belong to the years 1870–72; but thepassages dealing with the nature and characteristics of the State in general aremostly taken from Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologianism written in 1867,and based, as the title indicates, on the above-mentioned close connection, to hismind, between the State and religion.

It is not only the question of the relation of Marxian doctrines to those offreedom and of the State, so much discussed in the following pages that givesthem interest and importance, but also the light they throw on the system thatnow exists in Soviet Russia, and which calls itself “Socialist” and “democratic”,where it is, in reality, neither the one nor the other, but essentially capitalistic andtotalitarian or, as Bakunin expressed it in a passage to be quoted later “all workperformed in the employ of the State”. Bakunin showed in the early seventiesof the nineteenth century that such a system must result if it is attempted totransform society on an authoritarian basis; the existence in the middle of thetwentieth century of that portentious phenomenon, the Soviet Government, hasproved him up to the hilt to be right. In the words of his friend and collaborator,

5

James Guillaume, “How could one want an equalitarian and free society to issuefrom an authoritarian organisation? It is impossible.”

Melbourne, 1950. K. J. Kenafick

Life of Bakunin

Michael Alexandrovitch Bakunin was born on 30th May, 1814, in the Russianprovince of Tvar. He was the eldest son of a retired diplomat, who was a memberof the ancient Russian nobility. Young Michael passed his boyhood on the familyestate, and gained there an insight into the peasant mentality which is reflectedin his later writings.

At the age of fifteen, after a good home education under tutors, he was sentto St. Petersburg to study for and enter the Artillery School. After five years ofmilitary studies, he was posted as ensign to a regiment stationed in Poland; butthe monotonous life of a remote garrison soon proved highly unpalatable to thisvery sociable and highspirited young aristocrat. He threw up his commission andthe whole military career and adopted instead that of a student in Moscow.

The adolescence and young manhood of Bakunin were spent under the irondespotism of the Tsar Nicholas I, the most consistently reactionary that Russia hadever known and the most rigidly repressive till the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.Under this regime every type of liberalism of even the mildest kind, whether inpolitics, literature, or religion, was ruthlessly crushed. In philosophy alone didthere seem to be any chance for discussion, and those who would in Westerncountries have turned to politics devoted their attention in Russia to philosophy.Bakunin was one of these and in fact at this time his interest in politics appears tohave been nil. His favourite philosophers were Fichte and Hegel; from the formerhe learned that freedom, liberty, independence were the highest expression of themoral law; from the latter, the dominating philosopher of the time, he gained aknowledge of the Dialectic, the theory that all life and history constitute a processof the reconciliation of opposites on a higher plane—or, as Hegel expressed itthesis, antithesis and synthesis. From this there naturally arose a theory of historicevolution.

Five years of Bakunin’s life (1835–40) were spent in the study of philosophy, atMoscow, and then he went to Berlin to imbibe more knowledge of his subject atits fountainhead. The political and intellectual atmosphere of Germany, thoughreactionary compared to those of France and England, was almost progressiveas compared with Russia and some of the younger adherents of Hegel began todevelop Radical ideas from his doctrine of the Dialectic. Prominent among thesewas Ludwig Feuerbach, whose book The Essence of Christianity took a decidedly

6

materialistic, in fact, atheistic attitude. It converted many young intellectuals toits viewpoint and among these were Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and MichaelBakunin. The latter’s intellectual evolution had now begun—the evolution thatwas to turn him from an orthodox subject of the Tsar into a Materialist, a Revolu-tionary Socialist, and an Anarchist.

In 1842 he went to Dresden in Saxony and in October published in ArnoldRuge’s Deutsche Fahrbuecher an article entitled “Reaction in Germany” which ledto revolutionary conclusions and which ended with words that became celebrated:“Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates onlybecause it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life. The desirefor destruction is also a creative desire.”

Leaving Saxony which had become too hot to hold him as a result of thisarticle, Bakunin went in 1843 to Switzerland. Here he made the acquaintanceof Wilhelm Weitling and his writings. This man was a self-educated GermanCommunist, who preached revolution and Socialism in phrases foreshadowingthe later Anarchism. He said for instance: “The perfect society has no governmentbut only an administration, no laws but only obligations, no punishments butmeans of correction.” These sentiments greatly impressed and influenced theliberty-loving Bakunin. But they caused the gaoling of Weitling and when theTsarist Government heard of Bakunin’s connection with him, the young man wassummoned back to Russia. He refused to go and was outlawed. He went for abrief period to Brussels and then, early in 1844, to Paris.

Bakunin’s sojourn in Paris was of vital importance in his intellectual develop-ment. He encountered here two men whose influence on his thought was verygreat. These men were Karl Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Bakunin hadmany discussions with Marx at this period, and though greatly impressed by theGerman thinker’s real genius, scholarship, and revolutionary zeal and energy,was repelled by his arrogance, egotism, and jealousy. These faults were ones ofwhich Bakunin himself was entirely free, and this temperamental difference alonewould have made it difficult for these two great men to get along together, even iftheir opinions had not been dissimilar in many respects, and if outside influenceshad not deliberately poisoned their relationships at a later time.

But at this period of the early eighteen forties their differences had not yetmatured and Bakunin no doubt learned a good deal from Marx of the doctrineof Historical Materialism which is so important an element in both these greatSocialistic thinkers’ work.

From Proudhon he learned at this period evenmore than fromMarx. The formercan be considered as the father of modern Anarchism, for he utterly rejected thevery concept of Authority, in both politics and religion. In his economic views,he advocated a scheme called Mutualism, in which the most important role was

7

played by a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who wereengaged in production. Bakunin did not take up this idea far he was impressedrather by the Marxian economies and advocated a system of Collectivism, but hethoroughly appreciated the spirit of liberty that breathed through all Proudhon’swritings and talk, and he placed him in that respect above Marx, of whom hetruly said that the spirit of liberty was lacking in him; he remained from head tofoot an Authoritarian.

Towards the end of 1847, Bakunin was expelled from Paris for having deliv-ered a speech advocating freedom for Poland which was so displeasing to theTsarist Government that it put pressure on the French Government to take actionagainst him. He spent a few months in Brussels, but the revolution of February,1848, which overthrew King Louis Philippe and established the Second Republicallowed Bakunin to return to Paris and he took a prominent part in the politicaldemonstrations of the day. But he was soon attracted by the rising revolutionarymovements in Central Europe. In Prague he participated in a brief insurrection,and in May, 1849, in another in Dresden. This resulted in his arrest, and finally hisextradition to Russia, which claimed him as a fugitive. He passed eight horribleyears in solitary confinement and it was only the death of the implacable NicholasI and the accession of the milder Alexander II that enabled his family to securehis release. He spent four more years under surveillance in Siberia, where hemarried. Finally, in 1861, he escaped on an American vessel going to Japan and atthe end of the year reached London.

In London he worked for a time with Alexander Herzen, the Russian Liberal,in his publications addressed to the Russian people, went for a while to try tohelp a Polish insurrection from there, and then settled down in Italy. Here heencountered the religiously-minded Nationalism of Mazzini, a man whom hegreatly respected personally (having met him in London), but whose ideas heheartily disliked. This led him to accentuate the anti-patriotic and anti-religiouselements in his own ideas, which by this period of the middle eighteen-sixtieshad become practically those later called “Anarchism”.

In 1867 he went to Geneva to attend the inaugural Congress of the League forPeace and Freedom, a bourgeois body of which he thought some use could bemade for the purpose of Socialist propa ganda. He soon found that this couldnot be done (his ideas as set out in an article entitled “Federalism, Socialismand Anti-theologism”, were far too radical), and instead he concentrated on theFirst International, which had been founded, largely through the instrumentalityof Marx, in 1864. On leaving the League for Peace and Freedom, Bakunin andhis friends had formed the Alliance of Socialist Democracy and this body nowapplied to join the International. The application aroused the suspicions of Marxwho felt a jealous possessiveness as regards the International and had a German-

8

minded antipathy to anything coming from a Russian. The initial proposal wastherefore turned down and the Alliance was only admitted in sections, and whenas a separate body it had been disbanded. (July, 1869.)

In September of the same year, a Congress of the International was held at Basel.This Congress showed itself favourable to Bakunin’s view that inheritance shouldbe abolished and rejected Marx’s views on this subject. This was the beginning ofa breach between Marx and his followers on the one hand and Bakunin and hisfollowers on the other. It was fundamentally a difference on the question as to therole of the State in the Socialist programme. The Marxian view was essentiallythat the State must be used to bring about and consolidate Socialism; the viewsof the Bakuninists (at this period beginning to be called “Anarchists”) was thatthe State must be abolished, and that it could never under any circumstances beused to attain either Socialism or any form of social justice for the workers.

These differences spread rapidly throughout the International and were deep-ened and exacerbated in Switzerland (where Bakunin was now settled) by a Russ-ian emigre named Utin, who by methods of character-assassination poisonedMarx’s already jealous and vindictive mind still further against Bakunin. Thelatter rightly resented the campaign of calumny which was now launched againsthim but he was of a tolerant and generous disposition and for all his resentmentagainst Marx’s tactics (only too prophetic of later “Communist” methods) neverfailed to acknowledge Marx’s greatness as Socialist and thinker. He even beganat this time a Russian translation of Marx’s Capital, a book he highly admired,and whose economic doctrines he enthusiastically supported.

In the early part of 1870, Bakunin was mainly occupied in trying to stir up theRussian people to insurrection. This activity was in collaboration with a fanaticalyoung revolutionary named Sergei Nechayev. The latter had committed a politicalmurder in Russia and deceived Bakunin into condoning this act. He also publisheda “Revolutionary Catechism” which has often been mistaken for a production ofBakunin’s, andwhich preaches themost violent and amoral tactics against existingsociety. Internal evidence shows that it cannot be Bakunin’s for he was not anadvocate of such opinions; and when he finally became aware of Nechayev’sunscrupulousness he broke with him. The fugitive was later extradited to Russiaand died in jail. The whole episode did Bakunin considerable harm, giving himbecause of his association with Nechayev, a reputation for violence and amoralismwhich was quite undeserved.

The Franco-German war which broke out in July, 1870, led to the writing ofBakunin’s most important works. He looked to Social Revolution on the partof peasants and workers both to overthrow the reactionary regime of NapoleonIII and to repel the German invaders under the direction of Bismarck. With thepurpose of stirring up such a movement he wrote A Letter to a Frenchman, and

9

then in September after the fall of the Second Empire and the establishment ofthe Third Republic, went to Lyons to launch an Anarchist rising. Through lack ofdetermination and support by the workers’ leaders themselves, despite Bakunin’sdemand for energetic action, the movement failed after an initial and brief success,and he fled to Marseilles, and thence back to Locarno, whence he had come toLyons.

This fiasco deeply embittered and depressed Bakunin. He had lost all faith in thebourgeoisie since their turning on the workers in the revolutions of 1848, but noweven the workers had shown themselves supine, and he became very pessimisticabout their future. Arising out of these events he nowwrote his greatest work,TheKnouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution. The title implied an alliancebetween the knout of the Russian Tsar and the new German Empire of Bismarckand Wilhelm I to crush the social revolution. It became a very voluminous work,treating in an extremely discursive way all manner of subjects, political, historical,economic, religious, philosophical, metaphysical, ethical and even astronomical,for as an Appendix to it Bakunin gave an exposition of the ideas of the System ofNature which he held and which was a complete and consistent Materialism. Thepiece known as “God and the State” is merely a fragment of this greater work,which is indeed Bakunin’s “Magnum opus”, his testament, as he called it. Heworked at it intermittently from the close of 1870 to the close of 1872 and eventhen never succeeded in finishing it. (Sections of this work, written in Novemberand December, 1872, have been quoted at length in the text)

The Paris Commune of March-May, 1871, interested him greatly though heno longer had any illusions about a workers’ victory in any near future. Heconsidered however that the events of the Commune gave a practical justificationof his theories as against those of theMarxians, and a study of that historic episodewould seem to justify his contention. In this same year, 1871, he had a controversywith Mazzini who had attacked both the International and the Commune, theformer as being anti-nationalist and the latter as being atheistic and thereforeboth being abhorrent to Mazzini’s religious nationalism. Bakunin respectfully buttrenchantly replied in a pamphlet called The Political Theology of Mazzini whichhad a wide circulation in Italy and a great effect on the Italian working class,which largely became imbued with Anarchist ideas. In Spain also, Bakunin’sideas bore fruit and to a lesser extent in France.

In 1872 he was occupied with the coming Congress of the International at theHague. This meeting, which was held in September, was “packed” by the Marxistsin a manner which later “Communist” tactics have made only too familiar. Theequally familiar tactics of character-assassination were also resorted to by Marx,to his everlasting discredit, and Bakunin and his closest friend and collaborator,James Guillaume, were expelled from the International, the headquarters of which

10

were at the same time shifted to New York to prevent it from failing into the handsof the anti-Marxists, who constituted a real majority in the International. Thatorganisation soon withered and died in its alien home; but the Anarchists set upa new International in Switzerland and this lasted a few years more, survivingBakunin himself.

It was based on Bakunin’s idea of the Workers’ International being a looseassociation of fully autonomous, national groups, devoted only to the economicstruggle, in contradistinction to Marx’s attempt to convert it into a highly cen-tralised and rigidly controlled instrument of political manoeuvres—in fact whatLenin afterwards made of the Third International.

In order to ventilate his grievances and to explain his attitude to Marx andMarxism, Bakunin wrote a lengthy letter to the Brussels newspaper Liberte, andlarge extracts from this letter have been printed in the following pages.

In 1873, Bakunin formally withdrew from political activities. His health hadbeen permanently injured by the long years of solitary confinement in Russianprisons and, though he was a man of great size, physical strength and energy, hewas now old before his time.

He came out of his retirement, however, for the last time, in May, 1874, tolead an insurrection in the Italian province of Bologna; but this was a completefiasco. It had been meant as a political demonstration and this was in accordancewith Bakunin’s view that such actions should be used as a means of awakeningthe people’s interest. He had had no faith whatever in the use of political action(in the sense of voting at Parliamentary elections and referenda) ever since theabortive revolutions of 1848 with their aftermath of betrayal of the workers andof democracy itself by the bourgeoisie. He agreed with Proudhon’s dictum (bornof the same events) that universal suffrage was counter-revolution.

His doctrine, however, had nothing in common with the Nihilistic tacticsof bomb outrages and assassinations which, after his death, were adopted bysome Anarchists and tended to discredit the movement. He believed in massorganisations, in solidarity, and to him Individualism was a bourgeois ideology—amere excuse for egoism. True liberty could only be achieved in and throughSociety.

Bakunin was in other words a Socialist, or as he often called himself, a Collec-tivist, but his Socialism was of the Libertarian school and expressively rejectedauthority and, above all, the State. In this respect he followed the doctrine ofProudhon, not of Marx. His system in fact consists of Proudhonian politics andMarxian economics.

Bakunin died at Berne on 1st July, 1876, and was buried in the cemetery there.Exactly seventy years after his death, on the 1st July, 1946, a gathering of interna-tional Anarchists stood by his graveside to pay homage to his memory.

11

The message which, above all, Bakunin tried to preach was that only the work-ers could free the workers; in other words, he desired to stimulate the self-activityof the working-class. He was never tired of quoting the celebrated slogan ofthe First International: “The emancipation of the toilers must be the work ofthe toilers themselves,” and he expressly excluded from the concept of “toilers”those ex-workers who, having gained the leadership of a working-class move-ment, endeavour to make themselves masters of it and lead it where they aredetermined that it shall go. To Bakunin that was not emancipation, it was merelya change of masters. But he wanted the triumph of Humanity—a concept he hadborrowed from the great philosopher of Positivism, Auguste Comte—a full humandevelopment of all men in conditions of liberty and equality.

To him this could not be achieved by the methods envisaged by Marx and, inthe pages that follow, he has given a picture of what he thought the Marxian Statewould be like. The startling similarity of this picture to that of present-day SovietRussia is due to the fact that Lenin, the founder of the regime, himself a productof the despotic Tsarist regime, laid great stress on the authoritarian aspects ofMarxism as opposed to the more democratic elements of Anarchism. Bakuninhad assumed that, in practice, the authoritarian elements in Marxism when itattained power would predominate, and this turned out to be correct.

It is obvious of course that Marxism and Bakuninism despite these differenceshave much in common and Bakunin himself has not failed to point this outin the pages that follow. Both systems were founded on the idea of HistoricalMaterialism, both accepted the class struggle, both were Socialist in the sense ofbeing opposed to private property in the means of production. They differed inthat Bakuninism refused to accept the State under any circumstances whatever,that it rejected Party politics or Parliamentary action, and that it was founded onthe principle of liberty as against that of authority: and indeed, it is this spirit ofliberty (not Individualism) that distinguishes Bakunin, and in the light of whichhis criticisms of Marx and Marxism must be read. He had the true instinct thatno man can be really emancipated except by himself.

Up to the present, however, the emancipation of the workers has nowherebeen achieved, either by Bakunin’s methods nor by Marx’s (and certainly not inSoviet Russia); but to-day the more militant elements in the Left-wing and anti-Stalinist Socialist movements are beginning to give Bakunin’s teachings moreserious consideration than Marxians had ever done before; and some of themare commencing to feel that after all there may be something in what he said. If,therefore, the Socialist movement, in its more militant and revolutionary aspects,continues to exist throughout the world, it is possible that the political theoriesof Marx may give way to those of Bakunin, and that in the end he will prevail asthe inspiring genius of militant and democratic Socialism.

12

Chapter 1: Introductory

I am a passionate seeker after Truth and a not less passionate enemy of themalignant fictions used by the “Party of Order”, the official representatives ofall turpitudes, religious, metaphysical, political, judicial, economic, and social,present and past, to brutalise and enslave the world; I am a fanatical lover ofLiberty; considering it as the only medium in which can develop intelligence,dignity, and the happiness of man; not official “Liberty”, licensed, measured andregulated by the State, a falsehood representing the privileges of a few restingon the slavery of everybody else; not the individual liberty, selfish, mean, andfictitious advanced by the school of Rousseau and all other schools of bourgeoisLiberalism, which considers the rights of the individual as limited by the rightsof the State, and therefore necessarily results in the reduction of the rights of theindividual to zero.

No, I mean the only liberty which is truly worthy of the name, the libertywhich consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moralpowers which are to be found as faculties latent in everybody, the liberty whichrecognises no other restrictions than those which are traced for us by the laws ofour own nature; so that properly speaking there are no restrictions, since theselaws are not imposed on us by some outside legislator, beside us or above us; theyare immanent in us, inherent, constituting the very basis of our being, materialas well as intellectual and moral; instead, therefore, of finding them a limit, wemust consider them as the real conditions and effective reason for our liberty.

I mean that liberty of each individual which, far from halting as at a bound-ary before the liberty of others, finds there its confirmation and its extension toinfinity; the illimitable liberty of each through the liberty of all, liberty by soli-darity, liberty in equality; liberty triumphing over brute force and the principleof authority which was never anything but the idealised expression of that force,liberty which, after having overthrown all heavenly and earthly idols, will foundand organise a new world, that of human solidarity, on the ruins of all Churchesand all States.

I am a convinced upholder of economic and social equality, because I know that,without that equality, liberty, justice, human dignity, morality, and the well-beingof individuals as well as the prosperity of nations will never be anything else thanso many lies. But as upholder in all circumstances of liberty, that first condition ofhumanity, I think that liberty must establish itself in the world by the spontaneousorganisation of labour and of collective ownership by productive associations

13

freely organised and federalised in districts, and by the equally spontaneousfederation of districts, but not by the supreme and tutelary action of the State.

There is the point which principally divides the Revolutionary Socialists orCollectivists from the Authoritarian Communists, who are upholders of the ab-solute initiative of the State. Their goal is the same; each party desires equallythe creation of a new social order founded only on the organisation of collectivelabour, inevitably imposed on each and everyone by the very force of things, equaleconomic conditions for all, and the collective appropriation of the instrumentsof labour. Only the Communists imagine that they will be able to get there by thedevelopment and organisation of the political power of the working-classes, andprincipally of the proletariat of the towns, by the help of the bourgeois Radicalism,whilst the Revolutionary Socialists, enemies of all equivocal combinations andalliances, think on the contrary that they cannot reach this goal except by thedevelopment and organisation, not of the political but of the social and conse-quently anti-political power of the working masses of town and country alike,including all favourably disposed persons of the upper classes, who, breakingcompletely with their past, would be willing to join them and fully accept theirprogramme.

Hence, two different methods. The Communists believe they must organisethe workers’ forces to take possession of the political power of the State. TheRevolutionary Socialists organise with a view to the destruction, or if you prefer apoliter word, the liquidation of the State. The Communists are the upholdersof the principle and practice of, authority, the Revolutionary Socialists haveconfidence only in liberty. Both equally supporters of that science which must killsuperstition and replace faith, the former would wish to impose it; the latter willexert themselves to propagate it so that groups of human beings, convinced, willorganise themselves and will federate spontaneously, freely, from below upwards,by their own movement and conformably to their real interests, but never after aplan traced in advance and imposed on the “ignorant masses” by some superiorintellects.

The Revolutionary Socialists think that there is much more practical senseand spirit in the instinctive aspirations and in the real needs of the masses ofthe people than in the profound intellect of all these learned men and tutors ofhumanity who, after so many efforts have failed to make it happy, still presumeto add their efforts. The Revolutionary Socialists think, on the contrary, thatthe human race has let itself long enough, too long, be governed, and that thesource of its misfortunes does not lie in such or such form of government butin the very principle and fact of government, of whatever type it may be. Itis, in fine, the contradiction already become historic, which exists between the

14

Communism scientifically developed by the German school1 and accepted in partby the American and English Socialists on the one hand, and the Proudhonismlargely developed and pushed to its last consequences, on the other hand, whichis accepted by the proletariat of the Latin countries.

It has equally been accepted and will continue to be still more accepted by theessentially anti-political sentiment of the Slav peoples.

1 That is, the Marxians.

15

Chapter 2: Marxist Ideology

The doctrinaire school of Socialists, or rather of German Authoritarian Com-munists, was founded a little before 1848, and has rendered, it must be recognised,eminent services to the cause of the proletariat not only in Germany, but in Eu-rope. It is to them that belongs principally the great idea of an “InternationalWorkingmen’s Association” and also the initiative for its first realisation. To-day,1

they are to be found at the head of the Social Democratic Labour Party in Germany,having as its organ the “Volksstaat” [“People’s State”].

It is therefore a perfectly respectable school which does not prevent it fromdisplaying a very bad disposition sometimes, and above all from taking for thebases of its theories, a principal2 which is profoundly true when one considersit in its true light, that is to say, from the relative point of view, but which whenenvisaged and set down in an absolute manner as the only foundation and firstsource of all other principles, as is done by this school, becomes completely false.

This principle, which constitutes besides the essential basis of scientific Social-ism, was for the first time scientifically formulated and developed by Karl Marx,the principal leader of the German Communist school. It forms the dominatingthought of the celebrated “Communist Manifesto” which an international Com-mittee of French, English, Belgian and German Communists assembled in Londonissued in 1848 under the slogan: “Proletarians of all lands, unite” This manifesto,drafted as everyone knows, by Messrs. Marx and Engels, became the basis of allthe further scientific works of the school and of the popular agitation later startedby Ferdinand Lassalle3 in Germany.

This principle is the absolute opposite to that recognised by the Idealists of allschools. Whilst these latter derive all historical facts, including the developmentof material interests and of the different phases of the economic organisationof society, from the development of Ideas, the German Communists, on the con-trary, want to see in all human history, in the most idealistic manifestations ofthe collective as well as the individual life of humanity, in all the intellectual,moral, religious, metaphysical, scientific, artistic, political, juridical, and socialdevelopments which have been produced in the past and continue to be producedin the present, nothing but the reflections or the necessary after-effects of the

1 i.e., 1871.2 Historical Materialism.3 Lassalle lived 1825–64; a brilliant demagogue, he popularised (or vulgarised) Marx’s teachings and

launched the Social Democratic Movement in Germany. His organisation, the General Associationof German Workers, united with the Marxists in 1875.

16

development of economic facts. Whilst the Idealists maintain that ideas dominateand produce facts, the Communists, in agreement besides with scientific Materi-alism say, on the contrary, that facts give birth to ideas and that these latter arenever anything else but the ideal expression of accomplished facts and that amongall the facts, economic and material facts, the pre-eminent facts, constitute theessential basis, the principal foundation of which all the other facts, intellectualand moral, political and social, are nothing more than the inevitable derivatives.

We, who are Materialists and Determinists, just as much as Marx himself, wealso recognise the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. Werecognise, indeed, the necessity, the inevitable character of all events that happen,but we do not bow before them indifferently and above all we are very carefulabout praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrantopposition to the supreme end of history4 to the thoroughly human ideal that isto be found under more or less obvious forms, in the instincts, the aspirations ofthe people and under all the religious symbols of all epochs, because it is inherentin the human race, the most social of all the races of animals on earth. Thus thisideal, to-day better understood than ever, can be summed up in the words: It isthe triumph of humanity, it is the conquest and accomplishment of the full freedomand full development, material, intellectual and moral, of every individual, by theabsolutely free and spontaneous organisation of economic and social solidarity ascompletely as possible between all human beings living on the earth.

Everything in history that shows itself conformable to that end, from the humanpoint of view—and we can have no other—is good; all that is contrary to it is bad.We know very well, in any case, that what we call good and bad are always, oneand the other, the natural results of natural causes, and that consequently one isas inevitable as the other. But as in what is properly called Nature we recognisemany necessities that we are little disposed to bless, for example the necessityof dying of hydrophobia when bitten by a mad dog,5 in the same way, in that

4 Bakunin’s use of the term “supreme end of history” (in the sense of aim or objective), must not betaken to have a teleological signification, that is, taken to mean that he considered that the natureof things is such that there is a cosmic aim or purpose which informs the whole cosmic activity.Such a theory inevitably involves the notion of some directive intelligence behind Nature, and this,as a materialist, Bakunin absolutely denied. He means by “supreme end of history” simply theideal at which the human race should aim, as defined by him a few lines further on in the text. Ashe said in another passage of his works, man is part of universal Nature and cannot fight againstit; “But by studying its laws, by identifying himself in some sort with them, transforming themby a psychological process proper to his brain, into ideas and human convictions, he emancipateshimself from the triple yoke imposed on him firstly by external Nature, then by his own individualinward Nature, and finally by the society of which he is the product.” (Michael Bakunin and KarlMarx, p. 337.)

5 Bakunin wrote some years before Pasteur’s discovery of a cure for this disease.

17

immediate continuation of the life of Nature, called History, we encounter manynecessities which we find much more worthy of opprobrium than of benedictionand which we believe we should stigmatise with all the energy of which weare capable, in the interest of our social and individual morality, although werecognise that from the moment they have been accomplished, even the mostdetestable historic facts have that character of inevitability which is found in allthe Phenomena of Nature as well as those of history.

To make my idea clearer, I shall illustrate it by some examples. When I studythe respective social and political conditions in which the Romans and the Greekscame into contact towards the decline of Antiquity, I arrive at the conclusion thatthe conquest and destruction by the military and civic barbarism of the Romans,of the comparatively high standard of human liberty of Greece was a logical,natural, absolutely inevitable fact. But that does not prevent me at all from takingretrospectively and very firmly, the side of Greece against Rome in that struggle,and I find that the human race gained absolutely nothing by the triumph of theRomans.

In the same way, I consider as perfectly natural, logical, and consequentlyinevitable fact, that Christians should have destroyed with a holy fury all thelibraries of the Pagans, all the treasures of Art, and of ancient philosophy andscience.6 But it is absolutely impossible for me to grasp what advantages haveresulted from it for our political and social development. I am even very muchdisposed to think that apart from that inevitable process of economic facts inwhich, if one were to believe Marx, there must be sought to the exclusion of allother considerations, the only cause of all the intellectual and moral facts whichare produced in history—I say I am strongly disposed to think that this act of holybarbarity, or rather that long series of barbarous acts and crimes which the firstChristians, divinely inspired, committed against the human spirit, was one of theprincipal causes of the intellectual and moral degradation and consequently alsoof the political and social enslavement which filled that long series of banefulcenturies called the Middle Ages. Be sure of this, that if the first Christians had notdestroyed the libraries, Museums, and Temples of antiquity, we should not havebeen condemned to-day to fight the mass of horrible and shameful absurdities,which still obstruct men’s brains to such a degree as to make us doubt sometimesthe possibility of a more human future.

6 This, of course, is an exaggeration on Bakunin’s part. Such vandalism was not common. It wasthe political convulsions, barbarian invasions, and endless wars, foreign and civil, that caused thedecline of culture. The Christians tended to neglect and ignore the classical culture rather thanpersecute it. Of course, it is true that the decline and practical extinction of the ancient culturegreatly impaired intellectual progress.

18

Following on with the same order of protests against facts which have hap-pened in history and of which consequently I myself recognise the inevitablecharacter, I pause before the splendour of the Italian Republics and before themagnificent awakening of human genius in the epoch of the Renaissance. Then Isee approaching the two evil geniuses, as ancient as history itself, the two boa-constrictors which up till now have devoured everything human and beautifulthat history has produced. They are called the Church and the State, the Papacyand the Empire. Eternal evils and inseparable allies, I see them become reconciled,embrace each other and together devour and stifle and crush that unfortunateand too beautiful Italy, condemn her to three centuries of death. Well, again I findall that very natural, logical, inevitable, but nevertheless abominable, and I curseboth Pope and Emperor at the same time.

Let us pass on to France. After a struggle which lasted a century Catholicism,supported by the State, finally triumphed there over Protestantism. Well, do I notstill find in France to-day some politicians or historians of the fatalist school andwho, calling themselves Revolutionaries, consider this victory of Catholicism—abloody and inhuman victory if ever there was one—as a veritable triumph forthe Revolution? Catholicism, they maintain, was then the State, democracy,whilst Protestantism represented the revolt of the aristocracy against the Stateand consequently against democracy. It is with sophisms like that—completelyidentical besides with the Marxian sophisms, which, also, consider the triumphs ofthe State as those of Social Democracy—it is with these absurdities, as disgusting asrevolting, that the mind and moral sense of the masses is perverted, habituatingthem to consider their blood-thirsty exploiters, their age-long enemies, theirtyrants, the masters and the servants of the State, as the organs, representatives,heroes, devoted servants of their emancipation.

It is a thousand times right to say that Protestantism then, not as Calvinist the-ology, but as an energetic and armed protest, represented revolt, liberty, humanity,the destruction of the State; whilst Catholicism was public order, authority, divinelaw, the salvation of the State by the Church and the Church by the State, thecondemnation of human society to a boundless and endless slavery.

Whilst recognising the inevitability of the accomplished fact, I do not hesitateto say that the triumph of Catholicism in France in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies was a great misfortune for the whole human race, and that the massacreof Saint Bartholomew, as well as the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, werefacts as disastrous for France herself as were lately the defeat and massacre ofthe people of Paris in the Commune. I have actually heard very intelligent andvery estimable Frenchmen explain this defeat of Protestantism in France by theessentially revolutionary nature of the French people. “Protestantism,” they said,“was only a semi-revolution; we needed a complete revolution; it is for that reason

19

that the French nation did not wish, and was not able to stop at the Reformation. Itpreferred to remain Catholic till the moment when it could proclaim Atheism; andit is because of that that it bore with such a perfect and Christian resignation boththe horrors of Saint Bartholomew and those not less abominable of the executorsof the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.”

These estimable patriots do not seem to want to consider one thing. It is that apeople, who under whatsoever pretext it may be, suffers tyranny, necessarily losesat length the salutory habit of revolt and even the very instinct of revolt. It losesthe feeling for liberty, and once a people has lost all that, it necessarily becomesnot only by its outer conditions, but in itself, in the very essence of its being, apeople of slaves. It was because Protestantism was defeated in France that theFrench people lost, or rather, never acquired, the custom of liberty. It is becausethis tradition and this custom are lacking in it that it has not to-day what we callpolitical consciousness, and it is because it is lacking in this consciousness that allthe revolutions it has made up to now have not been able to give it or secure itpolitical liberty. With the exception of its great revolutionary days, which are itsfestival days, the French people remain to-day as yesterday, a people of slaves.

20

Chapter 3: The State and Marxism

All work to be performed in the employ and pay of the State—such is the fun-damental principle of Authoritarian Communism, of State Socialism. The Statehaving become sole proprietor—at the end of a certain period of transition whichwill be necessary to let society pass without too great political and economicshocks from the present organisation of bourgeois privilege to the future organ-isation of the official equality of all—the State will be also the only Capitalist,banker, money-lender, organiser, director of all national labour and distributor ofits products. Such is the ideal, the fundamental principle of modern Communism.

Enunciated for the first time by Babeuf,1 towards the close of the Great FrenchRevolution, with all the array of antique civism and revolutionary violence, whichconstituted the character of the epoch, it was recast and reproduced in miniature,about forty-five years later by Louis Blanc2 in his tiny pamphlet on The Organisa-tion of Labour, in which that estimable citizen, much less revolutionary, and muchmore indulgent towards bourgeois weaknesses than was Babeuf, tried to gild andsweeten the pill so that the bourgeois could swallow it without suspecting thatthey were taking a poison which would kill them. But the bourgeois were notdeceived, and returning brutality for politeness, they expelled Louis Blanc fromFrance. In spite of that, with a constancy which one must admire, he remainedalone in faithfulness to his economic system and continued to believe that thewhole future was contained in his little pamphlet on the organisation of Labour.

The Communist idea later passed into more serious hands. Karl Marx, theundisputed chief of the Socialist Party in Germany—a great intellect armed with aprofound knowledge, whose entire life, one can say it without flattering, has beendevoted exclusively to the greatest cause which exists to-day, the emancipationof labour and of the toilers—Karl Marx who is indisputably also, if not the only, atleast one of the principal founders of the International Workingmen’s Association,made the development of the Communist idea the object of a serious work. Hisgreat work, Capital, is not in the least a fantasy, an “a priori” conception, hatchedout in a single day in the head of a young man more or less ignorant of economicconditions and of the actual system of production. It is founded on a very ex-tensive, very detailed knowledge and a very profound analysis of this systemand of its conditions. Karl Marx is a man of immense statistical and economicknowledge. His work on Capital, though unfortunately bristling with formulas

1 Babeuf (1762–97) formed conspiracy of “Equals” to seize power in France and introduce an authori-tarian equalitarian Communism. Plot discovered and conspirators executed.

2 Blanc, Louis (1811–82) advocated State Socialism in France, particularly in the period 1840–50.

21

and metaphysical subtleties which render it unapproachable for the great massof readers, is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that itabsolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts.

Living for very nearly thirty years, almost exclusively among German workers,refugees like himself and surrounded by more or less intelligent friends and disci-ples belonging by birth and relationship to the bourgeois world, Marx naturallyhas managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church,composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restrictedthough it may be on the score of numbers, is skilfully organised, and thanks toits numerous connections with working-class organisations in all the principalplaces in Germany, it has already become a power.3 Karl Marx naturally enjoysan almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must beadmitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents insuch a way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination ofthe workers of Germany.

Marx is not only a learned Socialist, he is also a very clever Politician and anardent patriot. Like Bismarck, though by somewhat different means, and likemany other of his compatriots, Socialists or not, he wants the establishment of agreat Germanic State for the glory of the German people and for the happinessand the voluntary, or enforced civilization of the world.

The policy of Bismarck is that of the present; the policy of Marx, who considershimself at least as his successor, and his continuator, is that of the future. Andwhen I say that Marx considers himself the continuator of Bismarck, I am farfrom calumniating Marx. If he did not consider himself as such, he would nothave permitted Engels, the confidant of all his thoughts, to write that Bismarckserves the cause of Social Revolution. He serves it now in his own way; Marxwill serve it later, in another manner. That is the sense in which he will be later,the continuator, as to-day he is the admirer of the policy of Bismarck.

Now let us examine the particular character of Marx’s policy, let us ascertainthe essential points on which it is to be separated from the Bismarckian policy. Theprincipal point, and, one might say, the only one, is this: Marx is a democrat, anAuthoritarian Socialist, and a Republican; Bismarck is an out and out Pomeranian,aristocratic, monarchical Junker. The difference is therefore very great, veryserious, and both sides are sincere in this difference. On this point, there is nopossible understanding or reconciliation possible between Bismarck and Marx.Even apart from the numerous irrevocable pledges that Marx throughout his life,has given to the cause of Socialist democracy, his very position and his ambitionsgive a positive guarantee on this issue. In a monarchy, however Liberal it might

3 Written in September, 1870.

22

be, or even cannot be any place, any role for Marx, and so much the more soin the Prussian Germanic Empire founded by Bismarck, with a bugbear of anEmperor, militarist and bigoted, as chief and with all the barons and bureaucratsof Germany for guardians. Before he can arrive at power, Marx will have to sweepall that away.

Therefore he is forced to be Revolutionary. That is what separates Marx fromBismarck—the form and the conditions of Government. One is an out and outaristocrat and monarchist; and in a Conservative Republic like that of Franceunder Thiers4, there the other is an out and out democrat and republican, and,into the bargain, a Socialist democrat and a Socialist republican.

Let us see now what unites them. It is the out and out cult of the State. I haveno need to prove it in the case of Bismarck, the proofs are there. From head tofoot he is a State’s man and nothing but a State’s man. But neither do I believethat I shall have need of too great efforts to prove that it is the same with Marx.He loves government to such a degree that he even wanted to institute one in theInternational Workingmen’s Association; and he worships power so much thathe wanted to impose and still means to-day to impose his dictatorship on us. Itseems to me that that is sufficient to characterise his personal attitude. But hisSocialist and political programme is a very faithful expression of it. The supremeobjective of all his efforts, as is proclaimed to us by the fundamental statutes ofhis party in Germany, is the establishment of the great People’s State (Volksstaat).

But whoever says State, necessarily says a particular limited State, doubtlesscomprising, if it is very large, many different peoples and countries, but excludingstill more. For unless he is dreaming of the Universal State as did Napoleon andthe Emperor Charles the Fifth, or as the Papacy dreamed of the Universal Church,Marx, in spite of all the international ambition which devours him to-day, willhave, when the hour of the realisation of his dreams has sounded for him—if itever does sound—he will have to content himself with governing a single Stateand not several States at once. Consequently, who ever says State says, a State,and whoever says a State affirms by that the existence of several States, andwhoever says several States, immediately says: competition, jealousy, trucelessand endless war. The simplest logic as well as all history bear witness to it.

Any State, under pain of perishing and seeing itself devoured by neighbouringStates, must tend towards complete power, and, having become powerful, it mustembark on a career of conquest, so that it shall not be itself conquered; for twopowers similar and at the same time foreign to each other could not co-exist

4 Thiers, Adolphe (1797–1877), President of theThird Republic in 1871–3. Hewas primarily responsiblefor the ruthless suppression of the Paris Commune.

23

without trying to destroy each other. Whoever says conquest, says conqueredpeoples, enslaved and in bondage, under whatever form or name it may be.

It is in the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race and,as it were, to deny humanity. The State cannot preserve itself as such in itsintegrity and in all its strength except it sets itself up as supreme and absolutebe-all and end-all, at least for its own citizens, or to speak more frankly, for itsown subjects, not being able to impose itself as such on the citizens of otherStates unconquered by it. From that there inevitably results a break with human,considered as univesrsal, morality and with universal reason, by the birth of Statemorality and reasons of State. The principle of political or State morality is verysimple. The State, being the supreme objective, everything that is favourable tothe development of its power is good; all that is contrary to it, even if it werethe most humane thing in the world, is bad. This morality is called Patriotism.The International is the negation of patriotism and consequently the negation ofthe State. If therefore Marx and his friends of the German Socialist DemocraticParty should succeed in introducing the State principle into our programme, theywould kill the International.

The State, for its own preservation, must necessarily be powerful as regardsforeign affairs; but if it is so as regards foreign affairs, it will infallibly be so asregards home affairs. Every State, having to let itself be inspired and directed bysome particular morality, conformable to the particular conditions of its existence,by a morality which is a restriction and consequently a negation of human anduniversal morality, must keep watch that all its subjects, in their thoughts andabove all in their acts, are inspired also only by the principles of this patrioticor particular morality, and that they remain deaf to the teachings of pure oruniversally human morality. From that there results the necessity for a Statecensorship; too great liberty of thought and opinions being, as Marx considers,very reasonably too from his eminently political point of view, incompatible withthat unanimity of adherence demanded by the security of the State. That that inreality is Marx’s opinion is sufficiently proved by the attempts which he made tointroduce censorship into the International, under plausible pretexts, and coveringit with a mask.

But however vigilant this censorship may be, even if the State were to takeinto its own hands exclusively education and all the instruction of the people, asMazzini wished to do, and as Marx wishes to do to-day the State can never be surethat prohibited and dangerous thoughts may not slip in and be smuggled somehowinto the consciousness of the population that it governs. Forbidden fruit has suchan attraction for men, and the demon of revolt, that eternal enemy of the State,awakens so easily in their hearts when they are not sufficiently stupified, thatneither this education nor this instruction, nor even the censorship, sufficiently

24

guarantee the tranquillity of the State. It must still have a police, devoted agentswho watch over and direct, secretly and unobtrusively, the current of the peoples’opinions and passions. We have seen that Marx himself is so convinced of thisnecessity, that he believed he should fill with his secret agents all the regions ofthe International and above all, Italy, France, and Spain. Finally, however perfectmay be, from the point of view of the preservation of the State, the organsation ofeducation and instruction for the people, of censorship and the police, the Statecannot be secure in its existence while it does not have, to defend it against itsenemies at home, an armed force. The State is government from above downwardsof an immense number of men, very different from the point of view of the degreeof their culture, the nature of the countries or localities that they inhabit, theoccupation they follow, the interests and the aspirations directing them—the Stateis the government of all these by some or other minority; this minority, even if itwere a thousand times elected by universal suffrage and controlled in its acts bypopular institutions, unless it were endowed with the omniscience, omnipresenceand the omnipotence which the theologians attribute to God, it is impossible thatit could know and foresee the needs, or satisfy with an even justice the mostlegitimate and pressing interests in the world. There will always be discontentedpeople because there will always be some who are sacrificed.

Besides, the State, like the Church, by its very nature is a great sacrificer of livingbeings. It is an arbitrary being, in whose heart all the positive, living, individual,and local interests of the population meet, clash, destroy each other, becomeabsorbed in that abstraction called the common interest, the public good, the publicsafety, and where all real wills cancel each other in that other abstraction whichhears the name of the will of the people. It results from this, that this so-calledwill of the people is never anything else than the sacrifice and the negation of allthe real wills of the population; just as this so-called public good is nothing elsethan the sacrifice of their interests. But so that this omnivorous abstraction couldimpose itself on millions of men, it must be represented and supported by somereal being, by living force or other. Well, this being, this force, has always existed.In the Church it is called the clergy, and in the State—the ruling or governingclass.

And, in fact, what do we find throughout history? The State has always beenthe patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, an aristocraticclass, a bourgeois class, and finally a bureaucratic class, when, all the other classeshaving become exhausted, the State falls or rises, as you will, to the condition ofa machine; but it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of the State that thereshould be some privileged class or other which is interested in its existence. Andit is precisely the united interest of this privileged class which is called Patriotism.

25

By excluding the immense majority of the human race from its bosom, bycasting it beyond the pale of the engagements and reciprocal duties of morality,justice and right, the State denies humanity, and with that big word, “Patriotism”,imposes injustice and cruelty on all its subjects, as a supreme duty. It restrains,it mutilates, it kills humanity in them, so that, ceasing to be men, they are nolonger anything but citizens—or rather, more correctly considered in relation tothe historic succession of facts—so that they shall never raise themselves beyondthe level of the citizen to the level of a man.

If we accept the fiction of a free State derived from a social contract, thendiscerning, just, prudent people ought not to have any longer any need of gov-ernment or of State. Such a people can need only to live, leaving a free courseto all their instincts: justice and public order will naturally and of their accordproceed from the life of the people, and the State, ceasing to be the providence,guide, educator, and regulator of society, renouncing all its repressive power, andfailing to the subaltern role which Proudhon assigns it, will no longer anythingelse but a simple business office, a sort of central clearing house at the service ofsociety.

Doubtless, such a political organisation, or rather, such a reduction of politicalaction in favour of liberty in social life, would be a great benefit for society, butit would not at all please the devoted adherents of the State. They absolutelymust have a State-Providence, a State directing social life, dispensing justice, andadministering public order. That is to say, whether they admit it or not, and evenwhen they call themselves Republicans, democrats, or even Socialists, they alwaysmust have a people who are more or less ignorant, minor, incapable, or to callthings by their right names, riff-raff, to govern; in order, of course, that doingviolence to their own disinterestedness and modesty, they can keep the best placesfor themselves, in order always to have the opportunity to devote themselves tothe common good, and that, strong in their virtuous devotion and their exclusiveintelligence, privileged guardians of the human flock, whilst urging it on for itsown good and leading it to security, they may also fleece it a little.

Every logical and sincere theory of the State is essentially founded on theprinciple of authority—that is to say on the eminently theological, metaphysicaland political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, mustsubmit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which inone way or another, is imposed on them from above. But imposed in the name ofwhat and by whom? Authority recognised and respected as such by the massescan have only three possible sources—force, religion, or the action of a superiorintelligence; and this supreme intelligence is always represented by minorities.

Slavery can Change its form and its name—its basis remains the same. Thisbasis is expressed by the words: being a slave is being forced to work for other

26

people—as being a master is to live on the labour of other people. In ancienttimes, as to-day in Asia and Africa, slaves were simply called slaves. In the MiddleAges, they took the name of “serfs”, to-day they are called “wage-earners”. Theposition of these latter is much more honourable and less hard than that of slaves,but they are none the less forced by hunger as well as by the political and socialinstitutions, to maintain by very hard work the absolute or relative idleness ofothers. Consequently, they are slaves. And, in general, no State, either anacientor modern, has ever been able, or ever will be able to do without the forced labourof the masses, whether wage-earners or slaves, as a principal and absolutelynecessary basis of the liberty and culture of the political class: the citizens.

Even the United States is no exception to this rule. Its marvellous prosperityand enviable progress are due in great part and above all to one important ad-vantage—the great territorial wealth of North America. The immense quantity ofuncultivated and fertile lands, together with a political liberty that exists nowhereelse attracts every year hundreds of thousands of energetic, industrious and intel-ligent colonists. This wealth, at the same time keeps off pauperism and delays themoment when the social question will have to be put. A worker who does not findwork or who is dissatisfied with the wages offered by the capitalist can always, ifneed be, emigrate to the far West to clear there some wild and unoccupied land.5

This possibility always remaining open as a last resort to all American workers,naturally keeps wages at a level, and gives to every individual an independence,unknown in Europe. Such is the advantage, but here is the disadvantage. Ascheapness of the products of industry is achieved in great part by cheapness oflabour, the American manufacturers for most of the time are not in a conditionto compete against the manufacturers of Europe—from which there results, forthe industry of the Northern States, the necessity for a protectionist tariff. Butthat has a result, firstly to create a host of artificial industries and above all tooppress and ruin the non-manufacturing Southern States and make them wantsecession; finally to crowd together into cities like New York, Philadelphia, Bostonand many others, proletarian working masses who, little by little, are beginningto find themselves already in a situation analogous to that of the workers in thegreat manufacturing States of Europe. And we see, in effect the social questionalready being posed in the Northern States, just as it was posed long before inour countries.

5 It should be kept in mind in reading this and the paragraphs concerning the United States, thatthey were written in 1867 not long after the close of the Civil War. At that time it was not as easyto see as it is now, that the Republican Party was not really a “Party of Liberation” but the Partyof Industrial Capitalism, and that the Civil War was fought, not to “emancipate the slaves” butmerely to decide whether they should continue as chattel slaves or change their status to that ofwage-slaves.

27

And there too, the self-government of the masses, in spite of all the display ofthe people’s omnipotence, remains most of the time in a state of fiction. In reality,it is minorities which govern. The so-called Democratic Party, up to the time of theCivil War to emancipate the slaves, were the out and out partisans of slavery andof the ferocious oligarchy of the planters, demagogues without faith or conscience,capable of sacrificing everything to their greed and evil-minded ambition, andwho, by their detestable influence and actions, exercised almost unhindered, fornearly fifty years continuously, have greatly contributed to deprave the politicalmorality of North America.

The Republican Party, though really intelligent and generous, is still and alwaysa minority, and whatever the sincerity of this party of liberation, however greatand generous the principles it professes, do not let us hope that, in power, it willrenounce this exclusive position of a governing minority to merge into the massof the nation so that the self-government of the people shall finally become areality. For that there will be necessary a revolution far more profound than allthose which hitherto have shaken the Old and New Worlds.

In Switzerland, in spite of all the democratic revolutions that have taken placethere, it is still always the class in comfortable circumstances, the bourgeoisie,that is to say, the class privileged by wealth, leisure, and education, which governs.The sovereignty of the people—a word which, anyway, we detest because in oureyes, all sovereignty is detestable—the government of the people by themselvesis likewise a fiction. The people is sovereign in law, not in fact, for necessarilyabsorbed by their daily labour, which leaves them no leisure, and if not completelyignorant, at least very inferior in education to the bourgeoisie, they are forced toplace in the hands of the latter their supposed sovereignty. The sole advantagewhich they get out of it in Switzerland, as in the United States, is that ambitiousminorities, the political classes, cannot arrive at power otherwise than by payingcourt to the people, flattering their fleeting passions, which may sometimes bevery bad, and most often deceiving them.

It is true that the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than themost enlightened monarchy, for at least in the republic there are moments when,though always exploited, the people are not oppressed, while in monarchies theyare never anything else. And then the democratic regime trains the masses littleby little in public life, which the monarchy never does. But whilst giving thepreference to the republic we are nevertheless forced to recognise and proclaimthat whatever may be the form of government, whilst human society remainsdivided into different classes because of the hereditary inequality of occupations,wealth, education, and privileges, there will always be minority government andthe inevitable exploitation of the majority by that minority.

28

The State is nothing else but this domination and exploitation regularised andsystematised. We shall attempt to demonstrate it by examining the consequenceof the government of the masses of the people by a minority, at first as intelligentand as devoted as you like, in an ideal State, founded on a free contract.

Suppose the government to be confined only to the best citizens. At first thesecitizens are privileged not by right, but by fact. They have been elected by thepeople because they are the most intelligent, clever, wise, and courageous anddevoted. Taken from the mass of the citizens, who are regarded as all equal,they do not yet form a class apart, but a group of men privileged only by natureand for that very reason singled out for election by the people. Their number isnecessarily very limited, for in all times and countries the number of men endowedwith qualities so remarkable that they automatically command the unanimousrespect of a nation is, as experience teaches us, very small. Therefore, under painof making a bad choice, the people will be always forced to choose its rulers fromamongst them.

Here, then, is society divided into two categories, if not yet to say two classes, ofwhich one, composed of the immensemajority of the citizens, submits freely to thegovernment of its elected leaders, the other, formed of a small number of privilegednatures, recognised and accepted as such by the people, and charged by them togovern them. Dependent on popular election, they are at first distinguished fromthe mass of the citizens only by the very qualities which recommended them totheir choice and are naturally, the most devoted and useful of all. They do not yetassume to themselves any privilege, any particular right, except that of exercising,insofar as the people wish it, the special functions with which they have beencharged. For the rest, by their manner of life, by the conditions and means oftheir existence, they do not separate themselves in any way from all the others,so that a perfect equality continues to reign among all. Can this equality be longmaintained? We claim that it cannot and nothing is easier to prove it.

Nothing is more dangerous for man’s private morality than the habit of com-mand. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, willinfallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in powernever fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses andthe overestimation of one’s own merits.

“The masses,” a man says to himself, “recognising their incapacity to governon their own account, have elected me their chief. By that act they have publiclyproclaimed their inferiority and my superiority. Among this crowd of men, recog-nising hardly any equals of myself, I am alone capable of directing public affairs.The people have need of me; they cannot do without my services, while I, on thecontrary, can get along all right by myself: they, therefore, must obey me for their

29

own security, and in condescending to command them, I am doing them a goodturn.”

Is not there something in all that to make a man lose his head and his heart aswell, and become mad with pride? It is thus that power and the habit of commandbecome for even the most intelligent and virtuous men, a source of aberration,both intellectual and moral.

But in the People’s State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged classat all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view,but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, thoughI doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and thecourse it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There willtherefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government and,note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itselfwith governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments doto-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in itsown hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land,the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction ofcommerce, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, theState. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many “heads overflowingwith brains”6 in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, themost aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There willbe a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, andthe world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge and animmense ignorant majority.7 And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!

Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in this massand in order to keep it in check the enlightenment and liberating government ofMarx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the governmentmust be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiter-ates whose brutal uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowingeverything, even a government directed by heads overflowing with brains.

You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic phrases andpromises of Marx’s programme, there is to be found in his State all that constitutesthe true despotic and brutal nature of all States, whatever may be the form oftheir government and that in the final reckoning, the People’s State so stronglycommended by Marx, and the aristocratic-monarchic State, maintained with asmuch cleverness as power by Bismarck, are completely identical by the nature

6 A satiric allusion to the reference to Marx by Sorge, the German- American delegate, at the HagueConference.

7 Compare James Burnham’s theory in his Managerial Revolution.

30

of their objective at home as well as in foreign affairs. In foreign affairs it is thesame deployment of military force, that is to say, conquest; and in home affairs itis the same employment of this armed force, the last argument of all threatenedpolitical powers against the masses, who, tired of believing, hoping, submittingand obeying always, rise in revolt.

Marx’s Communist idea comes to light in all his writings; it is also manifestin the motions put forward by the General Council of the International Work-ingmen’s Association, situated in London, at the Congress of Basel in 1869, aswell as by the proposals which he had intended to present to the Congress whichwas to take place in September, 1870, but which had to be suspended because ofthe Franco-German War. As a member of the General Council in London andas corresponding Secretary for Germany, Marx enjoys in this Council, as is wellknown, a great and it must be admitted, legitimate influence, so that it can betaken for certain that of the motions put to the Congress by the Council, severalare principally derived from the system and the collaboration of Marx. It was inthis way that the English citizen Lucraft, a member of the General Council, putforward at the Congress of Basel the idea that all the land in a country shouldbecome the property of the State, and that the cultivation of this land shouldbe directed and administered by State officials, “Which,” he added, “will only bepossible in a democratic and Socialist State, in which the people will have towatch carefully over the good administration of the national land by the State.”

This cult of the State is, in general, the principal characteristic of GermanSocialism. Lassalle, the greatest Socialist agitator and the true founder of thepractical Socialist movement in Germany was steeped in it. He saw no salvationfor the workers except in the power of the State; of which the workers shouldpossess themselves, according to him, by means of universal suffrage.

31

Chapter 4: Internationalism and the State

Let us consider the real, national policy of Marx himself. Like Bismarck, he isa German patriot. He desires the greatness and power of Germany as a State. Noone anyway will count it a crime in him to love his country and his people; andsince he is so profoundly convinced that the State is the condition sine qua nonof the prosperity of the one and the emancipation of the other, it will be foundnatural that he should desire to see Germany organized into a very large andvery powerful State, since weak and small States always run the risk of seeingthemselves swallowed up. Consequently Marx as a clear-sighted and ardentpatriot, must wish for the greatness and strength of Germany as a State.

But, on the other hand, Marx is a celebrated Socialist and, what is more, oneof the principal initiators of the International. He does not content himself withworking for the emancipation of the proletariat of Germany alone; he feels himselfin honor bound, and he considers it as his duty, to work at the same time for theemancipation of the proletariat of all other countries; the result is that he findshimself in complete conflict with himself. As a German patriot, he wants thegreatness and power, that is to say, the domination of Germany; but as a Socialistof the International he must wish for the emancipation of all the peoples of theworld. How can this contradiction be resolved?

There is only one way, that is to proclaim, after he has persuaded himself ofit, of course, that the greatness and power of Germany as a State, is a supremecondition of the emancipation of the whole world, that the national and politicaltriumph of Germany, is the triumph of humanity, and that all that is contrary tothe advent of this great new omnivorous power is the enemy of humanity. Thisconviction once established, it is not only permitted, but it is commanded by themost sacred of causes, to make the International, including all the Federations ofother countries, serve as a very powerful, convenient, above all, popular meansfor the setting up of the great Pan-German State. And that is precisely what Marxtried to do, as much by the deliberations of the Conference he called at London in1871 as by the resolutions voted by his German and French friends at the HagueCongress. If he did not succeed better, it is assuredly not for lack of very greatefforts and much skill on his part, but probably because the fundamental ideawhich inspires him is false and its realization is impossible.

One cannot commit a greater mistake than to ask either of a thing or of aninstitution, or of a man mole than they can give. By demanding more from themone demoralises, impedes, perverts and kills them. The International in a shorttime produced great results. It organised and it will organise every day in a

32

more formidable manner still, the proletariat for the economic struggle. Is that areason to hope that one can use it as an instrument for the political struggle? Marx,because he thought so, very nearly killed the International, by his criminal attemptat the Hague. It is the story of the goose with the golden eggs. At the summonsto the economic struggle masses of workers of different countries hastened alongto range themselves under the flag of the International, and Marx imagined thatthe masses would stay under it—what do I say?—that they would hasten along instill more formidable numbers, when he, a new Moses, had inscribed the maximsof his political decalogue on our flag in the official and binding programme of theInternational.

There his mistake lay. The masses, without distinction of degree of culture,religious beliefs, country and speech, had understood the language of the Interna-tional when it spoke to them of their poverty, their sufferings and their slaveryunder the yoke of Capitalism and exploiting private ownership; they understood itwhen it demonstrated to them the necessity of uniting their efforts in a great solid,common struggle. But here they were being talked to about a very learned andabove all very authoritarian political programme, which, in the name of their ownsalvation, was attempting, in that very International which was to organise theiremancipation by their own efforts, to impose on them a dictatorial government,provisional, no doubt, but, meanwhile, completely arbitrary and directed by ahead extraordinarily filled with brains.

Marx’s programme is a complete fabric of political and economic institutionsstrongly centralised and very authoritarian, sanctioned, no doubt, like all despoticinstitutions in modern society, by universal suffrage, but subordinate neverthelessto a very strong government; to use the very words of Engels, the alter ego of Marx,the confidant of the legislator.

To what a degree of madness would not one have to be driven by ambition,or vanity, or both at once, to have been capable of conceiving the hope that onecould retain the working masses of the different countries of Europe and Americaunder the flag of the International on these conditions!

A universal State, government, dictatorship! The dream of Popes Gregory VIIand Boniface VIII, of the Emperor Charles V, and of Napoleon, reproducing itselfunder new forms, but always with the same pretensions in the camp of SocialistDemocracy! Can one imagine anything more burlesque, but also anything morerevolting?

To maintain that one group of individuals, even the most intelligent and thebest intentioned, are capable of becoming the thought, the soul, the guiding andunifying will of the revolutionary movement and of the economic organisation ofthe proletariat in all countries is such a heresy against common sense, and against

33

the experience of history, that one asks oneself with astonishment how a man asintelligent as Marx could have conceived it.

The Pope had at least for an excuse the absolute truth which they claimed restedin their hands by the grace of the Holy Spirit and in which they were supposedto believe. Marx has not this excuse, and I shall, not insult him by thinking thathe believes himself to have scientifically invented something which approachesabsolute truth. But from the moment that the absolute does not exist, therecannot be any infallible dogma for the International, nor consequently any officialpolitical and economic theory, and our Congresses must never claim the role ofGeneral Church Councils, proclaiming obligatory principles for all adherents andbelievers. There exists only one law which is really obligatory for all members,individuals sections and federations in the International, of which this law constitutes the true and only basis. It is, in all its extension, in all its consequencesand applications—the International solidarity of the toilers in all trades and inall countries in their economic struggle against the exploiters of labour. It is inthe real organisation of this solidarity, by the spontaneous organisation of theworking masses and by the absolutely free federation, powerful in proportionas it will be free, of the working masses of all languages and nations, and not intheir unification by decrees and under the rod of any government whatever, thatthere resides the real and living unity of the International. That from this everbroader organisation of the militant solidarity of the proletariat against bourgeoisexploitation there must issue, and in fact there does arise, the political struggleof the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; who can doubt? The Marxians andourselves are unanimous on this point. But immediately there presents itself thequestion which separates us so profoundly from the Marxians.

We think that the necessarily revolutionary policy of the proletariat must havefor its immediate and only object the destruction of States. We do not understandthat anyone could speak of international solidarity when they want to keepStates—unless they are dreaming of the Universal State, that is to say, universalslavery like the great Emperors and Popes—the State by its very nature being arupture of this solidarity and consequently a permanent cause of war. Neitherdo we understand how anybody could speak of the freedom of the proletariat orof the real deliverance of the masses in the State and by the State. State meansdomination, and all domination presupposes the subjection of the masses andconsequently their exploitation to the profit of some minority or other.

We do not admit, even as a revolutionary transition, either National Con-ventions, or Constituent Assemblies, or so-called revolutionary dictatorships;because we are convinced that the revolutionary is only sincere, honest and realin the masses, and that when it is concentrated in the hands of some governingindividuals, it naturally and inevitably becomes reaction.

34

The Marxians profess quite contrary ideas. As befits good Germans, theyare worshipers of the power of the State, and necessarily also the prophets ofpolitical and social discipline, the champions of order established from abovedownwards, always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of themasses, to whom they reserve the happiness and honour of obeying chiefs, electedmasters. The Marxians admit no other emancipation than that which they expectfrom their so-called People’s States. They are so little the enemies of patriotismthat their International, even, wears too often the colours of Pan-Germanism.Between the Marxian policy and the Bismarckian policy there no doubt exists avery appreciable difference, but between the Marxians and ourselves, there is anabyss. They are Governmentalists, we are out and out Anarchists.

Indeed, between these two tendencies no conciliation to-day is possible. Onlythe practical experience of social revolution, of great new historic experiences, thelogic of events, can bring them sooner or later to a common solution; and stronglyconvinced of the rightness of our principle, we hope that then the Germansthemselves—the workers of Germany and not their leaders—will finish by joiningus in order to demolish those prisons of peoples, that are called States and tocondemn politics, which indeed is nothing but the art of dominating and fleecingthe masses.

At a pinch I can conceive that despots, crowned or uncrowned, could dreamof the sceptre of the world; but what can be said of a friend of the proletariat,of a revolutionary who seriously claims that he desires the emancipation of themasses and who setting himself up as director and supreme arbiter of all therevolutionary movements which can burst forth in different countries, dares todream of the subjection of the proletariat of all these countries to a single thought,hatched in his own brain.

I consider that Marx is a very serious revolutionary, if not always a very sincereone, and that he really wants to uplift the masses and I ask myself—Why it is thathe does not perceive that the establishment of a universal dictatorship, whethercollective or individual, of a dictatorship which would perform in some degreethe task of chief engineer of the world revolution—ruling and directing the insurrectionalmovement of themasses in all countries as one guides amachine—thatthe establishment of such a dictatorship would suffice by itself alone to kill therevolution, or paralyse and pervert all the people’s movements? What is the man,what is the group of individuals, however great may be their genius, who woulddare to flatter themselves to be able to embrace and comprehend the infinitemultitude of interests, of tendencies and actions, so diverse in each country,province, locality, trade, and of which the immense totality, united, but not madeuniform, by one grand common aspiration and by some fundamental principles

35

which have passed henceforth into the consciousness of themasses, will constitutethe future social revolution?

And what is to be thought of an International Congress which in the so-calledinterests of this revolution, imposes on the proletariat of the whole civilised worlda government investedwith dictatorial power, with the inquisitorial and dictatorialrights of suspending regional federations, of proclaiming a ban against wholenations in the name of a so-called official principle, which is nothing else thanMarx’s own opinion, transformed by the vote of a fake majority into an absolutetruth? What is to be thought of a Congress which, doubtless to render its folly stillmore patent, relegates to America this dictatorial governing body, after havingcomposed it of men probably very honest, but obscure, sufficiently ignorant, andabsolutely unknown to it. Our enemies the bourgeois would then be right whenthey laugh at our Congresses and when they claim that the International onlyfights old tyrannies in order to establish new ones, and that in order worthily toreplace existing absurdities, it wishes to create another!

36

Chapter 5: Social Revolution and the State

What Bismarck has done for the political and bourgeois world, Marx claimsto do to-day1 for the Socialist world, among the proletariat of Europe; to replaceFrench initiative by German initiative and domination; and as, according to himand his disciples, there is no German thought more advanced than his own, hebelieved the moment had come to have it triumph theoretically and practicallyin the International. Such was the only object of the Conference which he called,together in September 1871 in London. This Marxian thought is explicitly devel-oped in the famous Manifesto of the refugee German Communists drafted andpublished in 1848. by Marx and Engels. It is the theory of the emancipation ofthe proletariat and of the organisation of labour by the State.

Its principal point is the conquest of political power by the working class. Onecan understand that men as indispensable as Marx and Engels should be thepartisans of a programme which, consecrating and approving political power,opens the door to all ambitions. Since there will be political power there willnecessarily be subjects, got up in Republican fashion, as citizens, it is true, but whowill none the less be subjects, and who as such will be forced to obey—becausewithout obedience, there is no power possible. It will be said in answer to thisthat they will obey not men but laws which they will have made themselves. Tothat I shall reply that everybody knows how much, in the countries which arefreest and most democratic, but politically governed, the people make the laws,and what their obedience to these laws signifies. Whoever is not deliberatelydesirous of taking fictions for realities must recognise quite well that, even insuch countries, the people really obey not laws which they make themselves, butlaws which are made in their name, and that to obey these laws means nothingelse to them than to submit to the arbitrary will of some guarding and governingminority or, what amounts to the same thing, to be freely slaves.

There is in this programme another expression which is profoundly antipatheticto us revolutionary Anarchists who frankly want the complete emancipation ofthe people; the expression to which I refer is the presentation of the proletariat,the whole society of toilers, as a “class” and not as a “mass”. Do you know whatthat means? Neither more nor less than a new aristocracy, that of the workersof the factories and towns, to the exclusion of the millions who constitute theproletariat of the countryside and who in the anticipations of the Social Democratsof Germany will, in effect, become subjects of their great so-called People’s State.

1 i.e., 1872.

37

“Class”, “Power”, “State”, are three inseparable terms, of which. each necessarypre-supposes the two others and which all definitely are to be summed up by thewords: the political subjection and the economic exploitation of the masses.

The Marxians think that just as in the 18th Century the bourgeoisie dethronedthe nobility, to take its place and to absorb it slowly into its own body, sharingwith it the domination and exploitation of the toilers in the towns as well as inthe country, so the proletariat of the towns is called on to-day to dethrone thebourgeoisie, to absorb it and to share with it the domination and exploitation ofthe proletariat of the countryside; this last outcast of history, unless this latterlater an revolts and demolishes all classes, denominations, powers, in a word, allStates.

To me, however, the flower of the proletariat does not mean, as it does to theMarxians, the upper layer, the most civilised and comfortably off in the workingworld, that layer of semi-bourgeois workers, which is precisely the class theMarxians want to use to constitute their fourth governing class, and which is reallycapable of forming one if things are not set to rights in the interests of the greatmass of the proletariat; for with its relative comfort and semi-bourgeois position,this upper layer of workers is unfortunately only too deeply penetrated with allthe political and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensionsof the bourgeois. It can be truly said that this upper layer is the least socialist, themost individualist in all the proletariat.

By the flowrer of the proletariat, I mean above all, that great mass, those millionsof non-civilised, disinherited, wretched and illiterates whom Messrs. Engels andMarx mean to subject to the paternal regime of a very strong government, toemploy an expression used by Engels in a letter to our friend Cafiero. Withoutdoubt, this will be for their own salvation, as of course all governments, as is wellknown, have been established solely in the interests of the masses themselves.2 Bythe flower of the proletariat I mean precisely that eternal “meat” for governments,that great rabble of the people ordinarily designated by Messrs. Marx and Engelsby the phrase at once picturesque and contemptuous of “lumpen proletariat”,the “riff raff”, that rabble which, being very nearly unpolluted by all bourgeoiscivilization carries in its heart, in its aspirations, in all necessities and the miseriesof its collective position, all the germs of the Socialism of the future, and whichalone is powerful enough to-day to inaugurate the Social Revolution and bring itto triumph.

Though differing from us in this respect also, the Marxians do not reject ourprogramme absolutely. They only reproach us with wanting to hasten, to outstrip,the slow march of history and to ignore the scientific law of successive evolutions.

2 This sentence is, of course, purely ironical.

38

Having had the thoroughly German nerve to proclaim in their worlds consecratedto the philosophical analysis of the gast that the bloody defeat of the insurgentpeasants of Germany and the triumph of the despotic States in the sixteenthcentury constituted a great revolutionary progress, they to-day have the nerveto satisfy themselves with establishing a new despotism to the so-called profit ofthe town-workers and to the detriment of the toilers in the country.

To support his programme of the conquest of political power, Marx has avery special theory which is, moreover, only a logical consequence of his wholesystem. The political condition of each country, says he, is always the product andthe faithful expression of its economic situation; to change the former it is onlynecessary to transform the latter. According to Marx, ail the secret of historicevolution is there. He takes no account of other elements in history, such asthe quite obvious reaction of political, juridical, and religious institutions on theeconomic situation. He says, “Poverty produces political slavery, the State,” buthe does not allow this expression to be turned around to say “Political slavery,the State, reproduces in its turn, and maintains poverty as a condition of its ownexistence; so that, in order to destroy poverty, it is necessary to destroy the State!”And, a strange thing in himwho forbids his opponents to lay the blame on politicalslavery, the State, as an active cause of poverty, he commands his friends anddisciples of the Social Democratic Party in Germany to consider the conquest ofpower and of political liberties as the preliminary condition absolutely necessaryfor economic emancipation.

Yet the sociologists of the school of Marx, men like Engels and Lassalle, objectagainst us that the State is not at all the cause of the poverty of the people, of thedegradation and servitude of the masses; but that the wretched condition of themasses, as well as the despotic power of the State are, on the contrary, both theone and the other, the effects of a more general cause, the products of an inevitablephase in the economic development of society, of a phase which, from the point ofview of history, constitutes true progress, an immense step towards what they callthe social revolution. To such a degree, in fact, that Lassalle did not hesitate loudlyto proclaim that the defeat of the formidable revolt of the peasants in Germanyin the sixteenth century—a deplorable defeat if ever there was one, from whichdates the centuries-old slavery of the Germans—and the triumph of the despoticand centralised State which was the necessary consequence of it, constituted areal triumph for this revolution; because the peasants, say the Marxians, are thenatural representatives of reaction, whilst the modern military and bureaucraticState—a product and inevitable accompaniment of the social revolution, which,starting from the second half of the sixteenth century commenced the slow, butalways progressive trans—formation of the ancient feudal and land economy intothe production of wealth, or, what comes to the same thing, into the exploitation

39

of the labour of the people by capital—this State was an essential condition of thisrevolution.

One can understand how Engels, driven on by the same !logic, in a letteraddressed to one of our friends, Carlo Cafiero, was able to say, without the leastirony, but on the contrary, very seriously, that Bismarck as well as King VictorEmmanuel II had rendered immense services to the revolution, both of themhaving created political centralisation in their respective countries.

Likewise Marx completely ignores a most important element in the historicdevelopment of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular characterof each race and each people, a temperament and character which are naturallythemselves the product of a multitude of ethnographical, climatological, economic,as well as historic causes, but which, once produced, exercise, even apart from andindependent of the economic conditions of each country, a considerable influenceon its destinies, and even on the development of its economic forces. Among theseelements, and these so to say natural traits, there is one whose action is completelydecisive in the particular history of each people; it is the intensity of the instinctof revolt, and by the same token, of liberty, with which it is endowed or which ishas conserved. This instinct is a fact which is completely primordial and animal;one finds it in different degrees in every living being, and the energy, the vitalpower of each is to be measured by its intensity. In man, besides the economicneeds which urge him on, this instinct becomes the most powerful agent of allhuman emancipations. And as it is a matter of temperament, not of intellectualand moral culture, although ordinarily it evokes one and the other, it sometimeshappens that civilised peoples possess it only in a feeble degree, whether it isthat it has been exhausted during their previous development, or whether thevery nature of their civilisation has depraved them, or whether, finally, they wereoriginally less endowed with it than were others.

Such has been in all its past, such is still today the Germany of the nobles andthe bourgeoisie. The German proletariat, a victim for centuries of one and theother, can it be made jointly responsible for the spirit of conquest which manifestsitself to-day in the upper classes of this nation? In actual fact, undoubtedly, no.For a conquering people is necessarily a slave people, and the slaves are alwaysthe proletariat. Conquest is therefore completely opposed to their interests andliberty. But they are jointly responsible for it in spirit, and they will remain jointlyresponsible as long as they do not understand that this Pan-German State, thisRepublican and so-called People’s State, which is promised them in a more or lessnear future, would be nothing else, if it could ever be realised, than a new formof very hard slavery for the proletariat.

Up to the present, at least, they do not seem to have understood it, and noneof their chiefs, orators, or publicists, has given himself the trouble to explain it

40

to them. They are all trying, on the contrary, to inveigle the proletariat along apath where they will meet with nothing but the animadversion of the world andtheir own enslavement; and, as long as, obeying the directions of these leaders,they pursue this frightful illusion of a People’s State, certainly the proletariatwill not have the initiative for social revolution. This Revolution will come toit from outside, probably from the Mediterranean countries, and then yieldingto the universal contagion, the German proletariat will unloose its passions andwill overthrow at one stroke the dominion of its tyrants and of its so-calledemancipaton.

The reasoning of Marx leads to absolutely opposite results. Taking into con-sideration nothing but the one economic question, he says to himself that themost advanced countries and consequently the most capable of making a socialrevolution are those in which modern Capitalist production has reached its high-est degree of development. It is they that, to the exclusion of all others, are thecivilised countries, the only ones called on to initiate and direct this revolution.This revolution will consist in the expropriation, whether by peaceful succes-sion or by violence, of the present property-owners and capitalists and in theappropriation of all lands and all capital by the State, which in order to fulfill itsgreat economic as well as political mission must necessarily be very powerfuland very strongly centralised. The State will administer and direct the cultivationof the land by means of its salaried officers commanding armies of rural toilers,organised and disciplined for this cultivation. At the same time, on the ruin ofall the existing banks it will establish a single bank, financing all labour and allnational commerce.

One can understand that, at first sight, such a simple plan of organisation—atleast in appearance—could seduce the imagination of workers more eager forjustice and equality than for liberty and foolishly fancying that these two canexist without liberty—as if to gain and consolidate justice and equality, one couldrely on other people, and on ruling groups above all, however much they mayclaim to be elected and controlled by the people. In reality it would be for theproletariat a barrack regime, where the standardised mass of men and womenworkers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of the drum; for the cleverand the learned a privilege of governing; and for the mercenary minded, attractedby the immensity, of the international speculations of the national banks, a vastfield of lucrative jobbery.

At home it will be slavery, in foreign affairs a truceless war; unless all the peo-ples of the “inferior” races, Latin or Slav, the one tired of the bourgeois civilisation,the other almost ignorant of it and despising it by instinct, unless these peoplesresign themselves to submit to the yoke of an essentially bourgeois nation and aState all the more despotic because it will call itself the People’s State.

41

The social revolution, as the Latin and Slav toilers picture it to themselves,desire it and hope for it, is infinitely broader than that promised them by theGerman or Marxian programme. It is not for them a question of the emancipa-tion parsimoniously measured out and only realisable at a very distant date, ofthe working class, but the complete and real emancipation of all the proletariat,not only of some countries but of all nations, civilised and uncivilised—a newcivilisation, genuinely of the people, being destined to commence by this act ofuniversal emancipation.

And the first word of this emancipation can be none other than “Liberty”, notthat political, bourgeois liberty, so much approved and recommended as a prelim-inary object of conquest by Marx and his adherents, but the great human liberty,which, destroying all the dogmatic, metaphysical, political and juridical fettersby which everybody to-day is loaded down, will give to everybody, collectivitiesas well as individuals, full autonomy in their activities and their development,delivered once and for all from all inspectors, directors and guardians.

The second word of this emancipation is solidarity, not the Marxian solidarityfrom above downwards by some government or other, either by ruse or by force,on the masses of the people; not that solidarity of all which is the negation ofthe liberty of each, and which by that very fact becomes a falsehood, a fiction,having slavery as the reality behind it; but that solidarity which is on the contrarythe confirmation and the realisation of every liberty, having its origin not in anypolitical law whatsoever, but in the inherent collective nature of man, in virtueof which no man is free if all the men who surround him and who exercise theleast influence, direct or indirect, on his life are not so equally. This truth is to befound magnificently expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man drafted byRobespierre, and which proclaims that the slavery of the least of men is the slaveryof all.

The solidarity which we ask, far from being the result of any artificial orauthoritarian organisation whatsoever, can only be the spontaneous product ofsocial life, economic as well as moral; the result of the free federation of commoninterests, aspirations and tendencies. It has for essential bases, equality, collectivelabour—becoming obligatory for each not by the force of law, but by the forceof facts—and collective property; as a directing light, experience—that is to saythe practice of the collective life; knowledge and learning; and as a final goal theestablishment of Humanity, and consequently the ruin of all States.

There is the ideal, not divine, not metaphysical but human and practical, whichalone corresponds to the modern aspirations of the Latin and Slav peoples. Theywant complete liberty, complete solidarity, complete equality in a word, theywant only Humanity and they will not be satisfied, even on the score of itsbeing provisional and transitory, with anything less than that. The Marxians will

42

denounce their aspirations as folly; that has been done over a long period, thathas not turned them from their goal, and they will never change the magnificenceof that goal for the completely bourgeois platitudes of Marxian Socialism.

Their ideal is practical in this sense, that its realisation will be much less difficultthan that of the Marxian idea, which, besides the poverty of its objective, presentsalso the grave inconvenience of being absolutely impracticable. It will not be thefirst time that clever men, rational and advocates of things practical and possible,will be recognised for Utopians, and that those who are called Utopians to-day willbe recognised as practical men to-morrow. The absurdity of the Marxian systemconsists precisely in the hope that by inordinately narrowing down the Socialistprogramme so as to make it acceptable to the bourgeois Radicals,3 it will transformthe latter into unwitting and involuntary servants of the social revolution. Thereis a great error there; all the experience of history demonstrates to us that analliance concluded between two different parties always turns to the advantageof the more reactionary of the two parties; this alliance necessarily enfeeblesthe more progressive party, by diminishing and distorting its programme, bydestroying its moral strength, its confidence in itself, whilst a reactionary party,when it is guilty of falsehood is always and more than ever true to itself.

As for me, I do not hesitate to say that all the Marxist flirtations with theRadicalism, whether reformist or revolutionary, of the bourgeois, can have noother result than the demoralisation and disorganisation of the rising power ofthe proletariat, and consequently a new consolidation of the esrablished powerof the boutgeois.

3 Radicals—the more progressive wing of the Liberals, and standing for social reform and politicalequalitarianism, but not for the abolition of private property, or of the wage system. Hence theywere not Socialists. The Labour Party of to-day has inherited much of their policy.

43

Chapter 6: Political Action and the Workers

In Germany, Socialism is already beginning to be a formidable power,1 despiterestrictive and oppressive laws. The workers’ parties2 are frankly Socialist—inthe sense that they want a Socialistic reform of the relations between capital andlabour, and that they consider that to obtain this reform, the State must first of allbe reformed, and that if it will not suffer itself to be reformed peaceably, it mustbe reformed by political revolution. This political revolution, they maintain, mustprecede the social revolution, but I consider this a fatal error, as such a revolutionwould necessarily be a bourgeois revolution and would produce only a bourgeoissocialism, that is to say it would lead to a new exploitation, more cunning andhypocritical, but not less oppressive than the present.

This idea of a political revolution preceding a social revolution has opened widethe doors of the Social Democratic Party to all the Radical democrats; who arevery little Socialists. And the leaders of the Party have, against the instincts of theworkers themselves, brought into close association with the bourgeois democratsof the People’s Party [the Liberals], which is quite hostile to Socialism, as its Pressand politicians demonstrate. The leaders of this People’s party, however, haveobserved that these anti-Socialist utterances displeased the workers, and theymodified the tone for they need the workers’ assistance in their political aims, justas it has always been the all-powerful arm of the people and then filch the profitsfor themselves. Thus these Popular democrats have now become “Socialists” of asort. But the “Socialism” does not go beyond the harmless dreams of bourgeoisco-operativism.

At a Congress in Eisenach, in August, 1869, therewere negotiations between therepresentatives of the two parties, worker and democrat, and these resulted in aprogramme which definitely constituted the Social Democratic Labour Party. Thisprogramme is a compromise between the Socialist and revolutionary progammeof the International as determined by the Congresses of Brussels and Basel, andthe programme of bourgeois democracy. This new programme called for a “freePeople’s State”, wherein all class domination and all exploitation would be abol-ished. Political liberty was declared to be the most urgently needed condition forthe economic emancipation of the working classes. Consequently the social ques-tion was inseparable from the political question. Its solution was possible only ina democratic State. The Party was declared to be associated with the International.

1 Written in September, 1870.2 The Marxists and the Lassalleans. They united in 1875.

44

Some immediate objectives were set out: manhood suffrage, referenda, free andcompulsory education, separation of Church and State, liberty of the Press, Stateaid to workers’ co-operatives.

This programme expresses not the Socialist and revolutionary aspirations ofthe workers, but the policy of the leaders. There is a direct contradiction betweenthe programme of the International, and the purely national programme set outabove, between the socialist solidarity of Labour and the political patriotism ofthe National State. Thus the Social Democrats find themselves in the position ofbeing united with their bourgeois compatriots against the workers of a foreigncountry; and their patriotism has vanquished them Socialism. Slaves themselvesof the German Government, they fulminate against the French Government astyrants. The only difference between Bismarck and Napoleon III was that the onewas a successful and the other an unsuccessful scoundrel, one was a scoundrel,and the other a scoundrel and a half.

The German Socialists’ idea of a Free State is a contradiction in terms, an unreal-isable dream. Socialism implying the destruction of the State, those who supportthe State must renounce Socialism; must sacrifice the economic emancipation ofthe masses to the political power of some privileged party—and in this case it willbe bourgeois democracy.

The programme of the Social Democrats really implies that they rust the bour-geois democrats to help the workers to achieve a Social revolution, after theworkers have helped the bourgeois to achieve a political revolution. The waythey have swallowed bourgeois ideas is shown by the list of immediate objectives,which except for the last, comprise the well-known programme of bourgeoisdemocracy. And in fact these immediate objectives have become their real objec-tives, so that they have lent the Social Democratic Party to become a mere tool inthe hands of the bourgeois democrats.

Does Marx himself sincerely want the antagonism of class against class, thatantagonism which renders absolutely impossible any participation of the massesin the political action of the State? For this action, considered apart from thebourgeoisie, is not practicable: it is only possible when it develops in conjunctionwith some party of that class and lets itself be directed by the bourgeois. Marxcannot be ignorant of that, and besides, what is going on to-day in Geneva, Zurich,Basel, and all over Germany, ought to open his eyes on this point, if he had closedthem, which, frankly, I do not believe. It is impossible for me to believe it alterhaving read the speech he delivered recently at Amsterdam, in which he saidthat in certain countries, perhaps in Holland itself, the social question could beresolved peacefully, legally, without force, in a friendly fashion, which can meannothing but this: it can be resolved by a series of success sive, pacific, voluntary

45

and judicious compromises, between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Mazzini neversaid anything different from that.3

Mazzini and Marx are agreed on this point of capital importance, that the greatsocial reforms which are to emancipate the proletariat cannot be realised exceptin a great democratic, Republican, very powerful and strongly centralised State,which for the proper well-being of the people, in order to be able to give themeducation and social welfare, must impose on them, by means of their own vote,a very strong government.4

I maintain that if ever the Marxian party, that of so-called Social Democracy,continues to pursue the course of political demands, it will see itself forced tocondemn, sooner or later, that of economic demands, he course of strike action,so incompatible are these two courses in reality.

It is always the same German temperament and the same logic which leadsthe Marxists directly and fatally into what we call Bourgeois Socialism and to theconclusion of a new political pact between the bourgeois who are Radicals, orwho are forced to become such and the “intelligent”, respectable, that is to say,duly bourgeoisfied minority of the town proletariat to the detriment of the massof the proletariat, not only in the country, but in the towns also.

Such is the truemeaning of workers’ candidatures to the Parliaments of existingStates, and that of the conquest of political power by the working class. For evenfrom the point of view of only the town proletariat to whose exclusive profit itis desired to take possession of political power, is it not clear that the popularnature of this power will never be anything else than fiction? It will be obviouslyimpossible for some hundreds of thousands or even some tens of thousands orindeed for only a few thousand men to effectively exercise this power. They willnecessarily exercise it by proxy, that is to say, entrust it to a group of men electedby themselves to represent and govern them, which will cause them without failto fall back again into all the falsehoods and servitudes of the representative orbourgeois regime. After a brief moment of liberty or revolutionary orgy, citizensof a new State, they will awake to find themselves slaves, playthings and victimsof new power-lusters. One can understand how and why clever politicians shouldattach themselves with great passion to a programme which opens such a widehorizon to their ambition; but that serious workers, who bear in the hearts likea living flame the sentiment of solidarity with their companions in slavery andwretchedness the whole world over, and who desire to emancipate themselves

3 In a previous passage, Bakunin had said that Mazzini, like the Marxists, wanted to use the people’sstrength whereby to gain political power.

4 This is essentially the line put forward to-day by Labour politicians, especially when, in Australia,they are asking for increased powers for the Federal Government.

46

not to the detriment of all but by the emancipation of all, to be free themselveswith all and not to become tyrants in their turn; that sincere toilers could becomeenamoured of such a programme, that is much more difficult to understand.

But then, I have a firm confidence that in a few years the German workersthemselves, recognising the fatal consequences of a theory which can only favourthe ambition of their bourgeois chiefs or indeed that of some exceptional work-ers who seek to climb on the shoulders of their comrades in order to becomedominating and exploiting bourgeois in their turn—I have confidence that theGerman workers will reject this theory with contempt and wrath, and that theywill embrace the true programme of working-class emancipation, that of the de-struction of States, with as much passion as do to-day the workers of the greatMediterranean countries, France, Spain, Italy, as well as the Dutch and Belgianworkers.

Meanwhile we recognise the perfect right of the German workers to go theway that seems to them best, provided that they allow us the same liberty. Werecognise even that it is very possible that by all their history, their particularnature, the state of their civilisation and their whole situation to-day, they areforced to go this way. Let then the German, American and English toilers try towin political power since they desire to do so. But let them allow the toilers ofother countries to march with the same energy to the destruction of all politicalpower. Liberty for all, and a natural respect for that liberty; such are the essentialconditions of international solidarity.

TheGerman Social Democratic Labour Party founded in 1869 by Liebknecht andBebel, under the auspices of Marx, announced in its programme that the conquestof political power was the preliminary condition of the economic emancipation of theproletariat, and that consequently the immediate object of the party must be theorganisation of a widespread legal agitation for the winning of universal suffrageand of all other political rights; its final aim, the establishment of the great pan-German and so-called People’s State.

Between this tendency and that of the Alliance [Bakunin’s organisation] whichrejected all political action, not having as immediate and direct objective the tri-umph of the workers over Capitalism, and as a consequence, the abolition of theState, there exists the same difference, the same abyss, as between the proletariatand the bourgeoisie. The Alliance, taking the programme of the Internationalseriously, had rejected contemptuously all compromise with bourgeois politics,in however Radical and Socialist a guise it might do itself up, advising the prole-tariat as the only way of real emancipation, as the only policy truly salutary forthem, the exclusively negative policy of the demolition of political institutions,of political power, of government in general, of the State, and as a necessary

47

consequence the international organisation of the scattered forces of the prole-tariat into revolutionary power directed against all the established powers of thebourgeoisie.I

The Social Democrats of Germany, quite on the contrary, advised an the work-ers so unfortunate as to listen to them, to adopt, as the immediate objective of theirassociation, legal agitation for the preliminary conquest of political rights; theythus subordinate the movement for economic emancipation to the movement firstof all exclusively political, and by this obvious reversal of the whole programme ofthe International, they have filled in at a single stroke the abyss they had openedbetween proletariat and bourgeoisie. They have done more than that, they havetied the proletariat in tow with the bourgeoisie. For it is evident that all thispolitical movement so boosted by the German Socialists, since it must precedethe economic revolution, can only be directed by the bourgeois, or what will bestill worse, by workers transformed into bourgeois by their ambition and vanity, and,passing in reality over the head of the proletariat, like all its predecessors, thismovement will not fail once more to condemn the proletariat to be nothing but ablind instrument inevitably sacrificed in the struggle of the different bourgeoisparties between themselves for the conquest of political power, that is to say, forthe power and right to dominate the masses and exploit them. To whomsoeverdoubts it, we should only have to showwhat is happenings in Germany, where theorgans of Social Democracy sing hymns of joy on seeing a Congress (at Eisenach)of professors of bourgeois political economy recommending the proletariat ofGermany to the high and paternal protection of States and in the parts of Switzer-land where the Marxian programme prevails, at Geneva, Zurich, Basel, where theInternational has descended to the point of being no longer anything more thana sort of electoral box for the profit of the Radical bourgeois. These incontestablefacts seem to me to be more eloquent than any words.

They are real and logical in this sense that they are a natural effect of thetriumph of Marxian propaganda. And it is for that reason that we fight theMarxian theories to the death, convinced that if they could triumph throughoutthe International, they would certainly not fail to kill at least its spirit everywhere,as they have already done in very great’part in the countries just mentioned.

The instinctive passion of the masses for economic equality is so great that ifthey could hope to receive it from the hands of despotism, they would indubitablyand without much reflection do as they have often done before, and deliverthemselves to despotism. Happily, historic experience has been of some serviceeven with the masses. To-day, they are beginning everywhere to understandthat no despotism has nor can have, either the will or the power to give themeconomic equality. The programme of the International is very happily explicit

48

on this question. The emancipation of the toilers cart be the work only of the toilersthemselves.

Is it not astonishing that Marx has believed it possible to graft on this never-theless so precise declaration, which he probably drafted himself, his scientificSocialism? That is to say, the organisation and the government of the new societyby Socialistic scientists and professors—the worst of all despotic government!

But thanks to this great beloved “riff raff” of the common people, who willoppose themselves, urged on, by an instinct invincible as well as just, to all thegovernmentalist fancies of this little working-class minority already properlydisciplined and marshaled to become the myrmidons of a new despotism, thescientific Socialism of Marx will always remain as a Marxian dream. This newexperience, more dismal perhaps than all past experiences, will be spared society,because the proletariat in general, and in all countries is animated to-day bya profound distrust against what is political and against all the politicians inthe world, whatever their party coolour, all of them having equally deceived,oppressed, exploited—the reddest Republicans just as much as the most absolutistMonarchists.

Appendix

50

Appendix A

In I. Berlin’s Karl Marx: His Life and Environment (Home University Library)are reprinted some passages of Bakunin’s writing which I have not seen elsewhereand which emphasise his views on the State, and other passages on the characterof Marx. The first selection is as follows:

“We revolutionary anarchists are the enemies of all forms of State and Stateorganisations . . . we think that all State rule, all governments being by their verynature placed outside the mass of the people, must necessarily seek to subject itto customs and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare ourselves tobe foes . . . of all State organisations as such, and believe that the people can onlybe happy and free, when, organised from below by means of its own autonomousand completely free associations, without the supervision of any guardians, itwill create its own life.”

“We believe power corrupts those who wield it as much as those who are forcedto obey it. Under its corrosive influence some become greedy and ambitioustyrants, exploiting society in their own interest, or in that of their class, whileothers are turned into abject slaves. Intellectuals, positivists,1 doctrinaires, allthose who put science before life . . . defend the idea of the state as being theonly possible salvation of society—quite logically since from their false premisesthat thought comes before life, that only abstract theory can form the startingpoint of social practice . . . they draw the inevitable conclusion that since suchtheoretical knowledge is at present possessed by very few, these few must be putin possession of social life, not only to inspire, but to direct all popular movements,and that no sooner is the revolution over than a new social organisation must atonce be set up; not a free association of popular bodies . . . working in accordancewith the needs and instincts of the people, but a centralised dictatorial power,concentrated in the hands of this academic minority, as if they really expressedthe popular will. . . . The difference between such revolutionary dictatorshipand the modern State is only one of external trappings. In substance both are atyranny of the minority over a majority in the name of the people—in the nameof the stupidity of the many and the superior wisdom of the few; and so theyare equally reactionary, devising to secure political and economic privilege to theruling minority and the . . . enslavement of the masses, to destroy the presentorder only to erect their own rigid dictatorship on its ruins.” (pp. 205–6)

1 Followers of Auguste Comte (1798–1857) founder of the science of Sociology. In his later writingsComte advocated a Religion of Humanity, to be led by a sort of agnostic secular priesthood consistingof scientific intellectuals, who would act as the moral and spiritual guides of a new social order.

The Anarchist LibraryAnti-Copyright

May 21, 2012

Michail BakuninMarxism, Freedom and the State

Translated and edited with a biographical sketch by K. J. Kenafick. To the memory of J. W.(Chummy) Fleming who, for nearly sixty years upheld the cause of freedom at the Yara BankOpen Air Forum Melbourne, Australia. First published in 1950 by Freedom Press. Scanned in

and put in HTML format by Greg Alt (galt@facility.cs.utah.edu) on January 15, 1996. There wasno copyright notice found in the 1984 printing by Freedom Press. All of the text except for thefootnotes, foreword, and biography were written by Mikhail Bakunin and translated and edited

by Kenafick. I have tried to fix all the errors resulting from scanning, but be aware thatthere are probably a few left. Dana Ward corrected html errors, December, 1999.

Retrieved on February 14th, 2009 from dwardmac.pitzer.edu